Police do they have the right

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought that driving to the MOT station was the only exception, and I find it shocking that insurance companies have such flawed contracts as to let drivers drive around without an MOT, there should be a law against that.
 
The key point is the car is insured as long as it is roadworthy. Obviously if you drive it about without MOT your breakign the law but your insurance would still be valid.

Knowing how Insurance Companies work (and I've been in the industry for 20 years) I am not saying whether you are right or wrong but it remains the case that if you had an accident and your vehicle wasn't MOT'd I couldn't see an Insurer paying on the basis that (a) the vehicle was illegal or (b) the vehicle could not be shown to be roadworthy (rightly or wrongly the MOT is there to show that at the time of testing the vehicle is/was safe to use on the road).

To think you are insured because the vehicle is 'roadworthy' in your eyes but does not have a current MOT is in my view a little short-sighted (even though it might be a strict interpretation of the Policy wording). Policies also use stock words/phrases such as 'due care' and 'reasonable' which are often used by the Insurers as 'get outs'.

Me ... cynic ... never!
 
I thought that driving to the MOT station was the only exception, and I find it shocking that insurance companies have such flawed contracts as to let drivers drive around without an MOT, there should be a law against that.

It doesn't really allow them to drive around though. It's still illegal as no MOT is an offence. It just means that while the police could "do them" for a lack of mot, they could not "do them" for lack of insurance.

It's all pretty messed up TBH.
 
It doesn't really allow them to drive around though. It's still illegal as no MOT is an offence. It just means that while the police could "do them" for a lack of mot, they could not "do them" for lack of insurance.

It's all pretty messed up TBH.

Which is why it should be made a law to tighten up the contracts of insurers, I dont want someone driving around with no MOT hoping not to get noticed by the coppers because they know their insurance can still cover them :thumbsdow
 
Knowing how Insurance Companies work (and I've been in the industry for 20 years) I am not saying whether you are right or wrong but it remains the case that if you had an accident and your vehicle wasn't MOT'd I couldn't see an Insurer paying on the basis that (a) the vehicle was illegal or (b) the vehicle could not be shown to be roadworthy (rightly or wrongly the MOT is there to show that at the time of testing the vehicle is/was safe to use on the road).

To think you are insured because the vehicle is 'roadworthy' in your eyes but does not have a current MOT is in my view a little short-sighted (even though it might be a strict interpretation of the Policy wording). Policies also use stock words/phrases such as 'due care' and 'reasonable' which are often used by the Insurers as 'get outs'.

Me ... cynic ... never!


I totally agree, insurance companies will do anything to get out of paying. The MOT by it's own admission, is not a test of roadworthyness. It is a complete minefield though. the point then goe's back to how to you show your car is roadworthy even with an MOT?! I think it's only one step to towards proving roadworthiness but then how can it be taken as proving anything when it negates any possible roadworthyness in it's own terms.

Needless to say this is something that could do with a good upheaval!
 
The OP know it is illegal to drive without MOT and is happy to crash into another driver and get away without paying insurance but he feels outraged the police can take steps to get him safely off the road ? Some of these threads are hard to believe.
 
I guess it depends on how you read the OP. Did he do it knowingly, or did he forget to renew his MOT?
 
Ok to clear things up

1. It is not me driving without MOT
2. The reason i asked is that my daughter is dating a dodgy bloke but i would say that being a farther but in reality he is something dodgy about him and beleive he has dodgy dealings going on this why he made this statement to get away from why the police took his car.

But what i am reading is that his story might be true, he says he is insured car has taxed just that his mot ran out so if this was the case the police can take his car away from him.

Just to point out on some comments my insurance runs out Dec 09 but my MOT runs out in March 09 so in theory no MOT does not mean no Insurance, anyway point is he is insured he has got taxed car in good worthy condition can the police still take car from him.

Si
 
No MOT does not invalidate insurance. And its a fixed penalty with no points.
driving with no insurance - yes than can impound car (and a nice six points and big fine). you can be found to be without insurance even though you have insurance get the car impounded wrongly and still have to pay the fees to get it back.
 
On Merseyside they have regular roadside checks if your car is untaxed or no mot or insurance "They take it, They Crush it and tough titty to you"

how cool is that!!

I think there are some cop cars that have cameras that read registration plates and cross reference against the MOT & insurance databases?
 
No MOT does not invalidate insurance. And its a fixed penalty with no points.

Lack of roadtax doesn't affect insurance, I know that.
Because that is a taxation issue, not a roadworthiness issue.
A lack of MOT is a roadworthiness issue though, so I would have thought that gives insurance the 'out' they always seek?
 
Are you telling me an insurance company would see insurance as valid on a car that does not have an MOT?
I don't think so...
That is a potentially unsafe vehicle.
Asked a copper.

Your car's MOT could expire today. Your insurance not for another month. So there could be a mismatch.

Your car can be impounded for no insurance. It won't be for no MOT.
 
Your car's MOT could expire today. Your insurance not for another month. So there could be a mismatch.

A mismatch in dates doesn't automatically mean you're covered.
I stand to be proven wrong here (would welcome a link), but I would have thought your insurance is a declaration that your car is roadworthy.
No MOT means not roadworthy (technically).
If insurance companies will invalidate policies for undeclared modifications, I wouldn't have thought they would be happy about no MOT!:confused:
 
Agree with Bowfer here, how can you prove your car was road worthy if you're in an accident and your car is a write-off?

While insurance contracts may state that you can drive without a MOT i'm sure it's not advised unless going to a MOT.

I find it highly irresponsible if insurance companies do cover drivers without a MOT, and like said before by someone that they will probably argue with you making it a very messy attempt at a claim.

I'll always have a MOT, Tax, Insurance etc, i'd like to think other drivers were responsible enough to do the same.
 
I've been doing some routing around.
Apparently, and surprisingly, no MOT certificate does NOT invalidate your insurance, unless your policy specifically mentions it.
Most, allegedly, only say the car must be roadworthy (no specific mention of MOT certificate).
No MOT doesn't necessarily mean it's not roadworthy though, it just shows you haven't bothered getting it tested!
However, lack of an MOT can become an issue if an item that would be tested during the MOT (steering/brakes etc.) is found to have contributed to an accident.
Even if the car has no MOT, but is considered to have been roadworthy at the time of the accident, they will give you a reduced payout in line no MOT certificate.
Just as you would get less for it if you tried to sell it witout an MOT.

So it looks like is it doesn't necessarily invalidate your insurance, but it definitely gives you potential headache in the event of an accident.
 
Last edited:
I've been doing some routing around.
Apparently, and surprisingly, no MOT certificate does NOT invalidate your insurance, unless your policy specifically mentions it.
Most, allegedly, only say the car must be roadworthy.
No MOT doesn't necessarily mean it's not roadworthy though, it just shows you haven't bothered getting it tested!
However, lack of an MOT can become an issue if an item that would be tested during the MOT (steering/brakes etc.) is found to have contributed to an accident.

Clear as mud then.:rolleyes:

The problem is, you could have a valid MOT and your car could not be roadworthy... yet you have the paperwork that says it is... what then?
 
A mismatch in dates doesn't automatically mean you're covered.
I stand to be proven wrong here (would welcome a link), but I would have thought your insurance is a declaration that your car is roadworthy.
No MOT means not roadworthy (technically).
If insurance companies will invalidate policies for undeclared modifications, I wouldn't have thought they would be happy about no MOT!:confused:
That though is a matter for your insurance company. I asked a copper friend and he said as above from the police point of view.
 
No MOT means not roadworthy (technically).
But it doesn't. If my MOT runs out tomorrow, my car is still in exactly the same conditions it's in today.

An MOT is a yearly update to make sure you car stays in roadworthy condition. Yes, you must have one. But not having one doesn't magically invalidate your insurance and neither should it. You may struggle to get a payout for your car, you might have to fight your corner to prove your car was roadworthy, but neither of those things should be a given just because your MOT expired.
 
But it doesn't. If my MOT runs out tomorrow, my car is still in exactly the same conditions it's in today.

An MOT is a yearly update to make sure you car stays in roadworthy condition. Yes, you must have one. But not having one doesn't magically invalidate your insurance and neither should it. You may struggle to get a payout for your car, you might have to fight your corner to prove your car was roadworthy, but neither of those things should be a given just because your MOT expired.

So because someone is too lazy to get their car MOT'd they should have just as much right as someone who gets their's MOT'd :confused:
At least some people put the effort and consideration in...
 
The problem is, you could have a valid MOT and your car could not be roadworthy... yet you have the paperwork that says it is... what then?
Shouldn't matter because as long as you've got an MOT. And having an MOT means your car is safe as houses right? :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom